Interesting debate, and geronimo as usual says what I need without having to say anything. Is that the equivalent of drafting in a road cycling race?

Sorry TBYJ, but your question reminds me of one of those cheap US court dramas on TV, i.e. frame a question and demand the answer as "Yes or no." You can ask any questions, but not to frame the answer.

I reject the question, and feel under no obligation to justify that rejection.

Raff's superiority (and supercilious attitude) I take no notice of. Any Priest can beat me on the questions on the bible. Doesn't mean I accept the bible. Raff judges me, and what do I care? It is his framework.

I have my own framework, my own spiritual beliefs, my universal belief on science and progress. Asking what me would it take to believe in the return of Jesus, in salvation? I do not recognise the question.

I understand Christianity, I am wildly read on other religions. You could equally ask would would it take for you to believe that socialism would work? I do not label myself as socialist or a conservative. In fact as anything. But I have strong views on the future of this planet. About the overlapping rhythms of this planet.

Just like in those court room dramas, you ask the questions and want a Yes or No answer, but there is no obligation to give one. You answer the question as you see fit.

Raff wants people to be acolytes, him as one of the priesthood. Good luck with that. Whatever makes you feel good. And just like the Hare Krisnas in the supermarket car parks selling their books, I do not have to explain, just a "no thanks".

Just think of this question, and if really think about it, from outside the system. Say as a visiting alien? You are presented with this question. What would the alien do? Answer it?

"Jesus is returning in 2050, what evidence would you need to accept this will happen?"

Dealing with just earthlings, say that question is asked in a particular dimension, it only makes sense in that dimension.

From another dimension, the question makes no sense. And you could never frame the answer in a way people in the other dimension could understand. Raff is Lord of his own dimension. Great, doesn't invalidate mine.

And bringing it back to the practical, that is why engineers make very good skeptics. We can step outside boxes (systems), step outside boxes and see how they interact. Never a high priest of any box, but what is the point of being an expert in the bible, when you know there are more boxes to understand and can affect your view.

Media Whore, you seem to fail by your own measure. You

know there are more boxes to understand and can affect your view

and yet despite "knowing" this you are unable to actually imagine that there really might be "boxes" that might affect your view. Your view is so set in stone that you cannot quantify and explain what might change it! That might typify some engineers, but I'd guess that such people don't make very good engineers.

Raff, you really nailed me to the cross with that reasoning. You know me better than myself.

So, just assume I am the closed minded, incompetent alien engineer given the job no one wants to get me out of the way, "Right off you go to Earth. Find out what is going on, this Jesus business is raising its head again. Do not hurry back too soon."

"Jesus is returning in 2050, what evidence would you need to accept this will happen?"

So what does 2050 mean? Against what timeline?
What evidence is there that Jesus existed?
What evidence is there that Jesus ever planned to come back?
Define "returning"? When defined, what evidence exists to support this?
Does the human race have a tendency for this?
Does human psychology have a role in any of this?
Did politics play a part in the creation of the bible and the Jesus story?
Was history recorded accurately? Even if it was, was it influenced by those that sponsored its writing?
etc. etc. etc.

So the visiting engineer would be questioning the orthodoxy. He would probably be labelled as incompetent and closed minded by those protecting it. Plus ca change hey?

So I return to the TBYJ question and say sorry I do not recognise the authority of this Court of Orthodoxy.

Orthodoxies will always try to cloak themselves in the "just and the right". Walking down a street in Bolton in 1914 and the Hun would have been your cloak. 1939 Berlin? Well so many, but mainly people non-German. Lenin (and many since) gave "the enemies of proletariat".

Climate Alarmists cloak their righteousness in climate science.

So ask the original TBYJ question of the visiting engineer from another planet. He would look at social, political, historical elements, not just the "science" in which the question was cloaked. Does the human race have a tendency to believe in fire and brimstone apocalypses? How much is the science tainted by these inputs? A 4 billion year old planet, and it is claimed these are the hottest years? What does hottest mean really? etc. etc.

And if anyone tells me that climate science is not influenced by psychological, social and political inputs and feedbacks, then they are the denier.

But you can ignore all that because as you can I have absolutely no imagination, and no ability at all to remove myself from a box and take a wider view.

So what would the visiting engineer ask when presented with the original question? I am fairly sure the first set of questions would all have "Please define..." in front of them. And he would look at the numerous answers (many conflicting, many deliberately left vague) scratch one of his 25 heads and think it is going to be a long report.

Nobody should feel compelled, but I think there is a real danger when we turn the idea of climate alarmism into an untouchable. We risk elevating it to a position it does not have - some sort of unquestionable dogma which must be accepted whole or rejected whole. In fact it has been turned it into a religion. This is what they want - they have tied together some brilliant science with some highly questionable statistics and they want everyone to treat both parts as a whole.

By rejecting the whole thing, we are helping them do this.

Because the last thing they want is for us to point out the glaring difference between the good science and their bad science, using the tools and logic of science itself. They would rather we rejected everything, and then look foolish, and thus easily dismissible. The angry opponent who has been beaten down and now just rejects everything, even the good parts, baring their teeth from the corner when the bell rings is just another bit of vermin which can be exterminated.

It disempowers us and empowers them.

By rejecting the whole thing, we are helping them do this.
Dec 21, 2015 at 9:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

I don't reject the whole thing, and have never suggested otherwise. Or at least, not intentionally. I can't be responsible for all of other peoples perceptions. I think that goes for most commenters at BH.

Because the last thing they want is for us to point out the glaring difference between the good science and their bad science, using the tools and logic of science itself. They would rather we rejected everything, and then look foolish, and thus easily dismissible.

Once again, I can't do a lot about what other people want. And I shouldn't have to somehow prove myself worthy and reasonable before I can voice scientific objections. I may have a science PhD, but don't need it to do so. A bricklayer who thinks he was deceived by promises about ice-free Arctics and Mediterranean Summers is under no obligation to prove his 'skeptical credentials'.

There's no obligation, it's just a useful and interesting exercise.

I'm already alarmed by the extent to which Climate Change propaganda is driving government policies on the back of inadequate evidence that propagandists' models are even close to correct.

I'd be alarmed if the Gulf Stream altered its course, turning the UK climate all Norwegian. Parochial? Of course - I hadn't planned on trying to emigrate again.

Coming at the question from tthe warmist end, I can give you a numerical answer.

The null hypothesis is that the temperature is changing due to random variation.

The alternate hypothesis is that there is a long term warming trend.

The most recent GISS 5-year average is anomaly 0.67C+/-0.09.

To be 95% confident in the alternate hypothesis you need to show an increase of 0.18C.

To be 95% confident in the null hypothesis you need to show a decrease of 0.18C.

When I see that the GISS 5-year average has dropped back to 0.49C I will accept the sceptic view.

EM,

there isn't one sceptic view, people here believe in end-of-century levels from the lower end of the IPCC estimates (1.5) right down to zero, and beyond into cooling. Which one would you be accepting?

TheBigYinJames, Martin A

There are indeed so many sceptic viewpoints to choose, from lukewarmers who accept AGW but think the consequences are overestimated, right through to sky dragon slayers.

"The null hypothesis is that the temperature is changing due to random variation "

That null hypothesis corresponds to the particular.sceptic view that there is zero warming/zero cooling and that we are only seeing short term variation about a constant mean.

Note that the 1998 centred 5 year average was 0.46C. By my criteria, that is the latest year for which the 2012 5-year average is significantly warmer.

If you wanted me to accept a lukewarm position, then a good statistical demonstration that the 30 year warming rate has dropped below 0.1/decade would probably suffice.

"Statistical model"?

The temperature data are Gaussian, with a short term standard deviation of 0.045C. There is an underlying trend of 0.21C +/- 0.09C decade since 1970.

Martin A, you comp!ain mightily about my weak statistics. Perhaps you might indicate what statistical argument might lead you to accept 0.2C/decade warming

Alternatively what statistical support can you provide for your own position, whatever it is?

Oi, I withdrew that.

TBYJ,
I unreservedly apologize to you for my intemperate posts last week. They were unbecoming and grew out of a completely unrelated real world situation.

RR,
Wise people have frequently emphasized the importance of critical self examination. TBYJ is asking a very useful question for accomplishing that review. To the extent that angry posts on this thread by myself distracted from that process I made that review less fruitful.